Abstract
System identification techniques applied to experimental human-in-the-loop data provide an objective test of three alternative control–theoretical models of the human control system: non-predictive control, predictive control, and intermittent predictive control. A two-stage approach to the identification of a single-input single-output control system is used: first, the closed-loop frequency response is derived using the periodic property of the experimental data, followed by the fitting of a parametric model. While this approach is well-established for non-predictive and predictive control, it is here used for the first time with intermittent predictive control. This technique is applied to data from experiments with human volunteers who use one of two control strategies, focusing either on position or on velocity, to manually control a virtual, unstable load which requires sustained feedback to maintain position or low velocity. The results show firstly that the non-predictive controller does not fit the data as well as the other two models, and secondly that the predictive and intermittent predictive controllers provide equally good models which cannot be distinguished using this approach. Importantly, the second observation implies that sustained visual manual control is compatible with intermittent control, and that previous results suggesting a continuous control model for the human control system do not rule out intermittent control as an alternative hypothesis. Thirdly, the parameters identified reflect the control strategy adopted by the human controller.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexandrov AV, Frolov AA, Horak FB, Carlson-Kuhta P, Park S (2005) Feedback equilibrium control during human standing. Biol Cybern 93: 309–322
Baron S, Kleinman DL, Levison WH (1970) An optimal control model of human response. Part II: prediction of human performance in a complex task. Automatica 6: 371–383
Bye RT, Neilson PD (2008) The BUMP model of response planning: variable horizon predictive control accounts for the speed-accuracy tradeoffs and velocity profiles of aimed movement. Hum Movement Sci 27(5): 771–798
Craik KJ (1947) Theory of human operators in control systems. I. The operator as an engineering system. Brit J Psychol 38: 56–61
Craik KJ (1947) Theory of human operators in control systems II. Man as an element in a control system. Br J Psychol 38: 142–148
Gawthrop P, Loram I, Lakie M (2009) Predictive feedback in human simulated pendulum balancing. Biol Cybern 101(2): 131–146
Gawthrop P, Loram I, Lakie M, Gollee H (2011) Intermittent control: a computational theory of human control. Biol Cybern 104(1–2): 31–51
Gawthrop PJ (2002) Physical model-based intermittent predictive control. In: Kaczorek T (ed) Proceedings of 8th international conference on methods & models in automation & robotics, pp 707–712, Szczecin
Gawthrop PJ (2004) Intermittent constrained predictive control of mechanical systems. In: Petersen IR (ed) Proceedings of 3rd IFAC symposium on mechatronic systems, Manly, 2004
Gawthrop PJ (2009) Frequency domain analysis of intermittent control. Proc I Mech Eng Pt I: J Syst Contr Eng 223(5): 591–603
Gawthrop PJ, Wang L (2006) Intermittent predictive control of an inverted pendulum. Contr Eng Pract 14(11): 1347–1356
Gawthrop PJ, Wang L (2007) Intermittent model predictive control. Proc I Mech Eng Pt I: J Syst Contr Eng 221(7): 1007–1018
Johansson R., Magnusson M., Akesson M. (1988) Identification of human postural dynamics. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 35(10): 858–869
Kleinman DL (1969) Optimal control of linear systems with time-delay and observation noise. IEEE Trans Autom Contr 14(5): 524–527
Kleinman DL, Baron S, Levison WH (1970) An optimal control model of human response. Part I: theory and validation. Automatica 6: 357–369
Kwakernaak H, Sivan R (1972) Linear optimal control systems. Wiley, New York
Levison WH, Baron S, Kleinman DL (1969) A model for human controller remnant. IEEE Trans Man-Machine Syst 10(4): 101–108
Lockhart DB, Ting LH (2007) Optimal sensorimotor transformations for balance. Nat Neurosci 10: 1329–1336
Loram ID, Gollee H, Lakie M, Gawthrop PJ (2011) Human control of an inverted pendulum: is continuous control necessary? Is intermittent control effective? Is intermittent control physiological?. J Physiol 589(2): 307–324
Loram ID, Lakie M, Gawthrop PJ (2009) Visual control of stable and unstable loads: what is the feedback delay and extent of linear time-invariant control?. J Physiol 587(6): 1343–1365
Masani K, Vette AH, Popovic MR (2006) Controlling balance during quiet standing: proportional and derivative controller generates preceding motor command to body sway position observed in experiments. Gait Posture 23(2): 164–172
Maurer C, Peterka RJ (2005) A new interpretation of spontaneous sway measures based on a simple model of human postural control. J Neurophysiol 93: 189–200
McRuer D. (1980) Human dynamics in man-machine systems. Automatica 16: 237–253
Navas F, Stark L (1968) Sampling or intermittency in hand control system dynamics. J Biophys 8(2): 252–302
Neilson PD (1999) Influence of intermittency and synergy on grasping. Motor Control 3: 280–284
Neilson PD, Neilson MD (1999) A neuroengineering solution to the optimal tracking problem. Hum Movement Sci 18(2–3): 155–183
Neilson PD, Neilson MD (2005) An overview of adaptive model theory: solving the problems of redundancy, resources, and nonlinear interactions in human movement control. J Neural Eng 2(3): S279–S312
Neilson PD, Neilson MD, O’Dwyer NJ (1988) Internal models and intermittency: a theoretical account of human tracking behaviour. Biol Cybern 58: 101–112
Nocedal J, Wright SJ (2006) Numerical optimization. Springer series in operations research, 2nd edn. Springer Verlag, New York
Oytam Y, Neilson PD, O’Dwyer NJ (2005) Degrees of freedom and motor planning in purposive movement. Hum Movement Sci 24(5–6): 710–730
Peterka RJ (2002) Sensorimotor integration in human postural control. J Neurophysiol 88(3): 1097–1118
Pintelon R, Schoukens J (2001) System identification. A frequency domain approach. IEEE Press, New York
Pintelon R, Schoukens J, Rolain Y (2008) Frequency domain approach to continuous-time identification: some practical aspects. In: Garnier H, Wang L (eds) Identification of continuous-time models from sampled data, Chapter 8, pp 215–248. Springer, New York
Ronco E, Arsan T, Gawthrop PJ (1999) Open-loop intermittent feedback control: practical continuous-time GPC. IEE Proc Part D: Contr Theory Appl 146(5): 426–434
van der Kooij H, de Vlugt E (2007) Postural responses evoked by platform pertubations are dominated by continuous feedback. J Neurophysiol 98: 730–743
van der Kooij H, Jacobs R, Koopman B, Grootenboer H (1999) A multisensory integration model of human stance control. Biol Cybern 80(5): 299–308
van der Kooij H, Peterka RJ (2011) Non-linear stimulus-response behavior of the human stance control system is predicted by optimization of a system with sensory and motor noise. J Comput Neurosci 30(3): 759–778
van der Kooij H, van Asseldonk E, van der Helm FCT (2005) Comparison of different methods to identify and quantify balance control. J Neurosci Methods 145(1–2): 175–203
Vince MA (1948) The intermittency of control movements and the psychological refractory period. Brit J Psychol 38: 149–157
Welch TDJ, Ting LH (2008) A feedback model reproduces muscle activity during human postural responses to support-surface translations. J Neurophysiol 99: 1032–1038
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gollee, H., Mamma, A., Loram, I.D. et al. Frequency-domain identification of the human controller. Biol Cybern 106, 359–372 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-012-0503-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-012-0503-9